What I don't get is why "dīcerētur" is imperfect subjunctive (as I would expect), but "concurrent" appears to be the indicative future. Is it just a contraction of the expected "concurrerent", perhaps? Or were the rules of mood agreement not always followed?

EDIT: Almost immediately after posting this, I found some copies of this passage do have the expected "concurrerent", and most if not all examples with "concurrent" came from Wikipedia. Now I wonder if maybe it was a copying error...

"Cunnō" is the ablative of "cunnus", which... well, I'll just say it's quite similar in meaning to an English word quite similar in form. (Though, as it happens, they might not be etymologically related.) The "bīs" after it has no particular significance that I know of.

Conditions are tricky, no matter how we try to simplify them. One would expect another imperfect subjunctive as you say. The imperfect subjunctive in a condition creates a sense of a thing done in the past resulting in a present state, but not quite in the same way that a normal perfect tense verb does this. The best example of this is from the Wizard of Oz - 'If I were the king of the forest' - here an imperfect subjunctive is used in LAtin.

If I were now king, having become so in the past...

I suspect that Cicero uses a future tense indicative to make the illusion of the words he is playing with take on a more vivid reality. 'If one were to write it this way the letters WILL appear rather obscene.

This is in any case an attempt to make sense of this odd mix of tenses and moods. I suspect that your initial suspicion may be correct, that concurrent, should read concurrerent.

The only thing we can guarantee when communicating via the internet is that we will be almost completely misunderstood, and likely cause great offence in doing so. Throw in an attempt at humour and you insure a lifelong enemy will be made.

ptolemyauletes wrote:I suspect that your initial suspicion may be correct, that concurrent, should read concurrerent.

You're likely right, ptolemyauletes, and furrykef. It's a mistake. Look at the sentence as a whole. The future indicative doesn't belong there. The sense can't be intended to be somehow more vivid. It's a present condition contrary to fact, so imperfect subjunctive in apodosis and protasis, followed by a past condition contrary to fact so pluperfect subjunctive in both.

Words have happily been joined by coupling them, as "sodes" for "si audes", "sis" for "si vis". There are even three in one in "capsis" ["cape si vis"]. "Ain" for "aisne", "nequire" for "non quire', "malle" for "magis velle", "nolle" for "non velle", and we also often say "dein" and "exin" for "deinde" and "exinde". That doesn't whiff of [/hint at] why it should be that "cum illis" is said, yet "cum nobis" isn't but "nobiscum". Because if that were to be said, the letters would run together obscenely, as indeed just now they would have, had I not interposed "autem".

Yes, according to the rules, and even to common sense, the imperfect subjunctive is much more likely. The only reason I do not assert that this is an error with absolute certainty, is because I have read enough Cicero to expect the unusual. If he DID write it, then I am not likely to questions his choice. That being said, I do think it is most likely an error in the text.

The only thing we can guarantee when communicating via the internet is that we will be almost completely misunderstood, and likely cause great offence in doing so. Throw in an attempt at humour and you insure a lifelong enemy will be made.

The only reason I assert it is an error is because I haven't read enough Cicero and, until there is certainty, I can posture. It's not an exactly empty posture, though, because it's an attempt to test the rule. Sometimes the fearless fool outdoes the wise man. That's not, mind you, a principle to base an educational system on, but (as you implied yourself in the other thread) fools can teach within it. You'll forgive me, I'm sure, for implying that you are wise, ptolemyauletes.* Understand also, I don't think you are outdone. [This is just my own particular, maybe odd, sense of humour.] What you say is very sensible.

What?!?! You disagree with me somewhere Adrianus?!?! You will pay, my friend... you will pay...

The only thing we can guarantee when communicating via the internet is that we will be almost completely misunderstood, and likely cause great offence in doing so. Throw in an attempt at humour and you insure a lifelong enemy will be made.

The only thing we can guarantee when communicating via the internet is that we will be almost completely misunderstood, and likely cause great offence in doing so. Throw in an attempt at humour and you insure a lifelong enemy will be made.